What would make a fitting legacy for Ted Kennedy in the Senate? I think it would be the election of a Senator to take his place, who committed to the same great public ideas that Senator Kennedy spoke about, so often and passionately.

Teddy often spoke of his dedication to and respect for the Constitution. This is to be expected where Sam Adams created the Sons of Liberty who threw the tea in Boston Harbor. And where the first shots of the American Revolution were fired at, and later fired by, the Minutemen at Concord and Lexington. So, the person who replaces Teddy should never vote to confirm as a judge, much less a Justice of the Supreme Court, anyone who has stated his or her intent to follow personal choices, rather than the Constitution itself, in deciding cases.

Again and again, decade after decade, Teddy bellowed his insistence for new and fresh ideas in the government. Thats an excellent idea. But new and fresh ideas do not usually come from tired old men. So, the person who replaces Teddy should support what John Adams called, rotation in office.

Today thats known as term limits. Periodically, office holders would stand aside, let others be elected, and go home to live under the laws theyd written. The Framers thought that the prospect of living under the laws they wrote was the best assurance that office holders would always favor the interests of their constituents, rather than their own, personal interests. The person who replaces Teddy should be committed to serving just two terms in the Senate, and supporting a constitutional amendment which would install limits for Senators and Representatives like the present limit on Presidents.

Ted Kennedy was frequently praised for doing his homework and being well prepared. For sure, much of that work was done by staff, but Teddy was the man in charge. Anyone who replaces him must also be prepared to work hard, and well. No new Senator in Teddys place would ever think of voting for a bill that includes taxes and regulations on the American people without reading the bill, and knowing what was in it.

Often, Teddy spoke of ideas that work, and are effective. It is out in the real world, where executives must meet payrolls, provide goods and services that people genuinely want, that good ideas are winnowed out from failed ideas by the discipline of free markets. Therefore, the person who replaces Teddy should have executive experience in the real world in successful businesses or institutions.

Ted Kennedy in his speeches often spoke glowingly of integrity in public office. Anyone who replaces him should pick up that torch as well. The new Senator should never let slide the dismissal of charges against Democrats, like Presidents, Senators, Representatives, Governors. or merely armed citizens standing outside a Philadelphia voting precinct. Whether the apparent criminals were Republicans, Democrats, independents or anything else, integrity is integrity and must be defended.

Where will that political paragon to replace Teddy, be found? It will not be among Massachusetts Democrats. Many of them are part of the corruption, both in Massachusetts and Washington, which has led to the current state of affairs. Those in Congress now supported the laws that turned Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae into slush funds, throwing money into the wind, and down rat holes.

Will that paragon come from the ranks of Massachusetts Republicans? Thats highly unlikely. Republicans in that state have a tendency to be demi-Democrats. They sell out part way, rather than all the way, to Democrat ideas. Governors like William Weld and Mitt Romney are examples.

No, the legacy of Teddy Kennedy cannot be filled through the election of nominees from either the Republican or Democratic Primaries. The proper candidate must be a scrupulously honest, dedicated, committed, successful in the real world, and now justifiably seeking promotion to the Senate. The candidate must support the Constitution, support term limits, support public integrity for all. Not just for people in the opposition party.

The legacy of the verbal claims of Teddy Kennedy can be honored. But it must come from an outside candidate, one with the enthusiastic support of the riled up Americans who have made their voices heard at Tea Parties and Town Halls across America, including in Massachusetts. Those people should commit their time and energy to put on their ballot a candidate who will go one better than Teddy Roosevelt for President in 1912.

Roosevelt started late in his 1912 campaign. Still, he buried the sitting Republican President, William Howard Taft. At the end, that race was between the challenger, Roosevelt, and the Democrat, Woodrow Wilson. With much more time to organize, raise funds, and run, the fitting legacy for Teddy Kennedy would be the defeat of both the Republican and Democrat candidates for his seat, by someone who believes in, and will carry out, the ideas that Teddy verbally supported for decade after decade after decade.

As Bill Shakespeare said, Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished.

- 30 -

John Armor is a 33-year practitioner in the US Supreme Court, who now lived in semi-retirement in the Blue Ridge Mountains. His latest book is on Thomas Paine. www.TheseAreTheTimes.us

1) He would be more committed than Ezekiel Emmanuel on Death Panels and be utterly vocal about it (to the Nth degree) so that the Dems have to shut him up.

2) That he would insist Seniors be denied care for multiple bypass, hip or joint replacements, just as the Presidents Adviser is. That He agree that the SSA was Right in denying COLAs for the next few years to Save Social Security for ONLY young people. Till Seniors Revolt!

3) That He would Trumpeted that American Roofs, Furnaces, Air Conditioner(s) and Hot Water Heaters MUST BE BROUGH UP TO CURRENT GREEN CODES BEFORE HOME SALES - JUST AS IS IN CAP AND TRADE. May they have to shut him up on it as well.

In other words, My prayers are that the Dems be Dems, just as is in their plank and the leaders - TO THE NTh Degree without any self-control.

If Teddy's replacement is a Liberal Democrat, I pray that: 1) He would be more committed than Ezekiel Emmanuel on Death Panels and be utterly vocal about it (to the Nth degree) so that the Dems have to shut him up.

2) That he would insist Seniors be denied care for multiple bypass, hip or joint replacements, just as the Presidents Adviser is. That He agree that the SSA was Right in denying COLAs for the next few years to Save Social Security for ONLY young people. Till Seniors Revolt!

3) That He would Trumpet that American Roofs, Furnaces, Air Conditioner(s) and Hot Water Heaters MUST BE BROUGH UP TO CURRENT GREEN CODES BEFORE HOME SALES - JUST AS IS IN CAP AND TRADE. May they have to shut him up on it as well.

In other words, My prayers are that the Dems be Dems, just as is in their plank and the leaders - TO THE NTh Degree without any self-control

The proper candidate must be a scrupulously honest, dedicated, committed, successful in the real world, and now justifiably seeking promotion to the Senate. The candidate must support the Constitution, support term limits, support public integrity for all. Not just for people in the opposition party.

—

When ya filing, my FRiend? ;-]

Something has been lost in the politics of today.

The people’s will has been subverted by the Incumbent Party... and those very interests that back them to the hilt.

SNIP - - Roosevelt started late in his 1912 campaign. Still, he buried the sitting Republican President, William Howard Taft. At the end, that race was between the challenger, Roosevelt, and the Democrat, Woodrow Wilson. With much more time to organize, raise funds, and run, the fitting legacy for Teddy Kennedy would be the defeat of both the Republican and Democrat candidates for his seat, by someone who believes in, and will carry out, the ideas that Teddy verbally supported for decade after decade after decade.

History is a fine teacher. What has been done before, can be done again. And done better with more preparation time. Roosevelt jumped out of the Republican Party in August, yet ran a strong second in November. Or, didn't you know that?

Roosevelt jumped out of the Republican Party in August, yet ran a strong second in November.

Wilson won 435 electoral votes to TR's 88 That does not constitute a 'strong second place'.

Wilson won 6,296,000 popular votes: (52% more than TR's 4,123,000).

Yes Roosevelt finished well ahead of Taft, but was nowhere near a "strong second" to Wilson.

TR's big problem was his impulsiveness, and since he had pledged not to seek another term, (on the eve of his 1905 inauguration, IIRC) he had to invent a rivalry with Taft to run again (and maintain his word by forming the Bull Moose party).

Say, that brings to mind the election of '92, H. Ross Perot and the election of Slick Willie.

There never was a Bull Moose Party, except in the minds of the press. Teddy Roosevelt appeared on the ballot in 47 of the then-48 states as the Progressive Party candidate. He did not make the ballot in Oklahoma.

And Perot did not cause the election of Slick Willie in '92. I was in the PhD program at American when that election took place. That precise question was addresses by several researchers, with different agendas. All came to this conclusion:

Perot's voters came equally from Clinton and Bush supporters, plus 2% of the total electorate who turned out to vote for Perot, but otherwise would not have voted at all.

You've got to get up early and pack a lunch if you want to play gotcha with this historian. I repeat, history is a great teacher. Take some more lessons.

Claims are not facts. No wonder that modern Progressive Parties want the legacy of Teddy Roosevelt. Consider that the Democrats claim that Thomas Jefferson formed their Party. He did not, and he is spinning in the grave over the policies of the current Democrat Party.

I repeat: there never was a Bull Moose Party. If you check the records for ballot access in 1912, as I have, you will see Roosevelt on the ballot in 47 states, exactly as I said. This is not a new lesson, since you didn't get the last lesson correct.

Why do you persist in arguing with someone who has worked on ballot access questions for three decades, on the subject of access in a particular year? The Supreme Court explicitly accepted as valid and useful a brief I filed in Anderson v. Celebreeze, in 1983. What's your problem?

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.